Why no straight answers?

[Zzyzx]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs – including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

[Danmark]

The question is, do skeptics know when an historical theory is plausible or not? Do they know when they are no longer acting as rational historians, but as prejudiced philosophers, who really don't care what historical explanation there is, just as long as there is some historical explanation: aliens will do as well as anything else?

May I suggest that you too are a prejudiced philosopher, just bias in the other direction? Who qualify as "rational historians" is determined by your initial philosophy. Your philosophy says the eyewitness accounts trumps physical evidence, our philosophy says the physical evidence trumps eyewitness accounts.

And let us be clear about 'eyewitness' testimony. Altho' it is 'evidence' it is weak evidence compared to physical evidence. Witnesses have been known to lie, to have misperceived, to be biased, to have their honest recollections distorted by conferring with other witnesses, as well as other problems that are part of being human. When we do not even know the identity of the person reporting what the eyewitness said and this anonymous hearsay is recorded decades after the fact, the problems are even greater.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 436 by Erexsaur]

Hi, Erexsaur.

I will attempt to answer at least SOME of your questions. I didn't reply to them all, as they were pretty much similar.

Let me know what you think. Here goes nuthin' :

...

You have your belief that the god you worship is infallible, and have prevented any questioning as to whether he actually IS infallible. You declare it such and that is that. End of discussion.

Thanks for your very helpful admission that we are all fallible. With that the case, why shouldn't we seek and trust a superior infallible being?

How could we know that someone is infallible if we are judging that person with our fallible minds? Sorry, that's a rhetorical question. I should avoid those.. they are very boring to read. I should say instead that if we are fallible, we can not expect to KNOW anything infallibly. So, what we may THINK is infallible might NOT be. We might have FAILED in our judgement.

Please? Don't we live by someone's final word?

Some people seem to think that. I suppose by "someone", you mean "God"?
Atheists don't live by "God's" anything.

But then again, I have no idea what authority you are talking about.. the law? Yes, everyone has to obey the law or suffer consequences. But human laws do not imply any kind of god.

Is it final or debatable that one should never commit murder?

I fail to see what this has to do with being fallible.

Who or what else should we trust for resolving ever present conflicts among us?

Us.

As fallible beings, how do we know that what we know as truth is indeed the truth unless we know that it originated from a higher infallible Source?

That's circular. The same question could be asked about the knowledge of that so called "higher infallible Source". How do we know what we know about that?

Of course, we do NOT know about that. The debates in here are to give an opportunity for theists to PROVE that such a "Source" exists other than in the imagination of the believers.

Even if unknown, wouldn't there be a collective cry for such?

Crying for something isn't proof of it.

Did the laws of physics originate with any of us that are fallible?

Yes.

Why shouldn't we acknowledge and trust Him that's revealed to us?

Because there is no good reason to think that it exists.

How do children know right from wrong except from their parents that know everything compared with their developing level of knowledge?

Parents are fallible. We know that humans exist. The question is about the god hypothesis, not humans.

How do the parents guide their children, employers their workers, and rulers the land but by the higher standard of Him that's infallible?

By using their best fallible intentions and their best fallible reasoning.

Despite superior accuracy of today's electronic test equipment because of digitizing and laser trimming of resistors, companies better have them traceable to the National Bureau of Standards if they want to prevail in court cases! The NBS better not be left out! How are we better off without indispensable standards without which a merchant may “legally� cheat? Is there any suspicion why there's so much effort to leave God out of everything--especially in court cases?

Even imperfect but REAL standards are better than any imaginary ones.

Why depend on fallible man instead of Him that's supernaturally infallible?

Because we prefer to rely on what is real, as opposed to magical thinking.

Some people might flee from a conversation that consists mainly of rhetorical questions. I have replied to some of these questions you ask.

I hope to hear your comments about them. Let us know what you think.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to Erexsaur]

Hi Guys,

I found an error in my post #436 in my sixth paragraph.

Instead of,

"On what bases may we the infallible rebuke the deceiver?,"


I should have said,

"On what bases may we the fallible rebuke the deceiver?"

ELD

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs – including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

For my part Zzz, I am waiting for (and pushing, through my OPs) skeptics to understand what evidence actually is. For instance, I am not even remotely confident that skeptics know how history works, how to assess ancient documents, how to distinguish literary genres of the Bible.

Until I see even one skeptic up to date with these, there is no point in arguing with them.

The evidence is that individuals began to spread the rumor of the risen Jesus during the 1st century AD. Any evidence that you point to will serve to sustain that the rumor was being spread, but that's all.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to KenRU]

Hi Guys,

I have a few questions for you that are convinced that God is nonexistent.

1. Is it impossible for the God of the Bible to exist?

2. Is it impossible for the Bible to be revelation from God that it claims ito be?

3. Could the God of the Bible reveal things to us in such a way that we could be absolutely certain of them?

4. Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?


Finally, If I could prove to your satisfaction that God is really true, would you trust and worship Him?

Take care,
Earl

If Santa has magic, is it possible that reindeer can fly? Under those circumstances, yes. Is there any real reason to suppose that this claim is true? Since, at the end of the day no one has ever produced an actual flying reindeer, the answer is NO! Flying reindeer and flying reanimated corpses are NOT observed to be true. Anything could be true, but clearly not everything IS true.

[Zzyzx]

.

Anything could be true, but clearly not everything IS true.

Some defenders of Bible stories have learned to say in debate, "Well it could be true".

Does Christian literature and dogma present the watered down version "it could be true" -- or is that merely the preference of those who have discovered that they cannot defend "is true"?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.

Anything could be true, but clearly not everything IS true.

Some defenders of Bible stories have learned to say in debate, "Well it could be true".

Does Christian literature and dogma present the watered down version "it could be true" -- or is that merely the preference of those who have discovered that they cannot defend "is true"?

As an argument, "anything could be true" ranks right along side of "I believe it so that settles it," and right up there with "My mind is made up, so don't bother confusing me with the facts."

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to KenRU]

Hi Guys,

I have a few questions for you that are convinced that God is nonexistent.

1. Is it impossible for the God of the Bible to exist?

2. Is it impossible for the Bible to be revelation from God that it claims ito be?

3. Could the God of the Bible reveal things to us in such a way that we could be absolutely certain of them?

4. Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?


Finally, If I could prove to your satisfaction that God is really true, would you trust and worship Him?

Take care,
Earl

1. Once you invoke supernaturality nothing is impossible and conversation, given that presupposition, is a waste of time.
13. Once you invoke supernaturality nothing is impossible and conversation, given that presupposition, is a waste of time.
3. Once you invoke supernaturality nothing is impossible and conversation, given that presupposition, is a waste of time.
4. Once you invoke supernaturality nothing is impossible and conversation, given that presupposition, is a waste of time.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 441:

For my part Zzz, I am waiting for (and pushing, through my OPs) skeptics to understand what evidence actually is.

I propose there's less need to educate folks on what constitutes evidence, and more need to produce evidence. 'Specially as relates to sense-assaulting claims of dead folks rising, and critters talking. All such as that.

For instance, I am not even remotely confident that skeptics know how history works,

History "works", by being in the past. It doesn't work by declaring something's true just 'cause someone's got 'em a printing press.

how to assess ancient documents

We then ask for a presentation of said documents for a thorough analysis.

Are there documents contemporaneous to the time of Jesus, or are we stuck with our poor ol' misunderstanding of a "history" that's only 'recorded' after decades have passed?

how to distinguish literary genres of the Bible.

Until the more fantastical claims are confirmed, all I see is variations of fiction. Granted, a city here, a city there. But dead folks hoppin' up?

That ain't "history", that's fantasy.

Until I see even one skeptic up to date with these, there is no point in arguing with them.

When one promotes the impossible as "real", or "historical", we shouldn't be too upset to see how upset they are to have failed.


"I've pointed out why it's no use to argue, by refusing to accept that skeptics have 'em even the first brain cell, much less a clump of 'em!"

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 458 by JoeyKnothead]

Well said.

Who'd have ever thought "history" and "evidence" would be added to the list of words up for wild interpretation and abuse by apologists?